You don't often hear complaints about working for Apple, Google, Intel, Lucasfilm, Adobe, Intuit, or Pixar. But according to plaintiffs lawyers at Lieff Cabraser, Berger & Montague, and Grant & Eisenhofer, employees at the companies were the victims of a conspiracy to suppress their salaries and keep them tied down at their jobs. And on Wednesday, a judge in San Jose ruled that the lawyers had come up with enough evidence to allow their case to move forward.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup certified a securities class action against Diamond Foods Inc. in connection with the nut and snack food company's botched bid to acquire Pringles in 2012.

Here's yet another judge's take on the Supreme Court's ruling in AT&T v. Concepcion. Santa Ana federal district court judge Andrew Guilford granted DirecTV's motion to compel arbitration over alleged damages stemming from its early termination charges. Still, plaintiffs counsel sees a ray of hope in the ruling.

It took just hours after the SEC reached a $242 million settlement with AXA Rosenberg in February for Bernstein Litowitz to file a follow-on class action. And it took just nine months for AXA to agree to a $65 million settlement in the case.

Goldman Sachs and its lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell and Paul Hastings can't seem to catch a break in their defense against high-profile claims that the investment bank systematically discriminated against professional female employees. But you can't fault them for not trying.

The Sixth Circuit caught flack from tort reformers six months ago for green-lighting class claims over mold-ridden Whirlpool washing machines. Now the Seventh Circuit has given class action critics more to stew over in a parallel case against Sears--and possibly complicated efforts by Whirlpool's lawyers at Mayer Brown to win Supreme Court relief.